Imagine a television show so beyond the pale of good taste that Pat Buchanan, the Bob Jones University Faculty of Arts, and even some of the more tolerant branches of the Ku Klux Klan would condemn it. You’ve just imagined “Survivor: Jim Crow South.”

Described as a dark cross between “Gone with the Wind” and “Remember the Titans,” this innovative program would try to evoke the feel of the Old South through athletic challenges designed to bring out the conflicts and tensions of life below the Mason-Dixon Line. A cast of young twenty-something Los Angeles-area cocktail waitresses, aspiring actors, and pharmaceutical reps will feel the sting of prejudice and the guilt of oppressing others while competing to win one million dollars in cash.

But this show is so much more than merely a new twist on an old genre. In a move unprecedented in television history, “Survivor: Jim Crow South” would break away from those pesky notions of “fairness” or “equality” that have long haunted creators of reality show competitions and games. At its most basic level this new version of “Survivor” would pit two tribes with differing cultural and racial backgrounds against each other. But—and herein lies the innovation—the two tribes would live in separate and unequal lodgings.

In competitions, Seiku (the Caucasian tribe) would be given better supplies and more time to complete challenges, while team Anawatu (made up of African-Americans) would have to make do without these luxuries. Described by many as “innovative” and “daring,” this systematic inequality will likely radically change the game’s dynamic.

Many have also lauded the new method of voting in tribal council. While Seiku is going to remain on the somewhat stale “one man, one vote” model, Anawatu tribe members will only be able to vote in tribal council after passing a complex “Survivor Literacy Test” about the subtleties of the game’s rules. Thereafter, each Anawatu vote would count for only 3/5 of every Seiku vote.

Fortunately, the program “Survivor: Jim Crow South” is not a real TV show. Instead it remains merely an inspired concept, just like that show “Tiny House” (which millions were upset to learn was actually a clever Geico ad). Unfortunately, a similar, albeit toned-down, version of it just premiered last Thursday on CBS.

The new show “Survivor: Cook Islands” is about as politically correct as the first draft of Khatami’s forum speech, before he remembered that lying is sometimes a good rhetorical tool. Although a more offensive show could be conceived (e.g. “Survivor: Gaza Strip”), “Survivor: Cook Islands” is pretty terrible.

Contestants are divided up into four tribes based on race. The Aitu tribe includes Hispanics, Raro is made up of Caucasians, African-Americans are in Hiki, and Asians are in Puka. Calling the show a “social experiment like never before,” Jeff Probst explained to viewers that this year’s program was divided in this way in order to improve the diversity of its contestants. (Of course dividing people into racial “tribes” was probably the only way in which to improve diversity, or at least the only really controversial way).

“Survivor: Cook Islands” has already transformed many peoples’ perceptions about race in America. In a jam-packed opening show that shattered many long-held racial stereotypes, the Asian tribe “Puka” came out on top in a puzzle-solving competition and the African-American tribe “Hiki” was forced to vote someone off.

To be serious for a moment, some might ask what’s wrong with these racial tribes; is it any different than the type of tribal self-segregation so often seen in high school cafeterias or even Harvard’s dining halls? But the thing to remember is that in “Survivor: Cook Islands” these tribes are not created by the players but imposed from above.

Although the program is not based on racial ideology per se, it is designed to foster and highlight racial tension. Moreover this tension is meant to entertain. Making light of a serious and disturbing issue is the common thread running through both “Survivor: Cook Islands” and “Survivor: Jim Crow South.” And it is this insensitivity that has led even such a paragon of human rights as Coca-Cola to be somewhat critical of “Survivor: Cook Islands,” choosing to withdraw advertising from the show along with other companies such as Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Campbell Soup, General Motors, and Home Depot.

Alas, “Survivor: Cook Islands” is merely a stunt, and the numbers show it. Only a little more than 18 million people tuned into the show’s premiere, a lackluster audience share for all the controversy. Unfortunately, CBS probably reads the numbers differently. They might try to be even more outrageous next season. If that’s the case you might be seeing “Survivor: Jim Crow South” merchandise in stores real soon.



Charles R. Drummond ’09 is a history concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.